Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Snugglybear

What Happened To £60,000 Houses

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14410589

So lower cost construction leads, not to lower house prices, but to higher profits for builders. Who knew?

Low-cost housing plan for first-time home-buyers falls flat

By Alvin Hall

Seven years ago, the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, announced plans to build homes for just £60,000 to help young first-time buyers priced out of the market - but did they ever get built?

He devoted much of his speech to the Labour Party Conference in 2004 to the problem of young people being priced out of the housing market.

Since coming to power in 1997, he observed, the average price of a home for a first-time buyer had tripled to around £220,000 ($355,000).

The former Labour minister's solution was to challenge the construction industry to build homes for just £60,000 ($97,000).

They could do this, he argued, by embracing more modern methods of construction, like building homes off-site and using materials more effectively.

The price of the property would further be brought down for the first-time buyer, he said, because they would be paying only for the cost of building and not for the land.

"We own the land; it's a valuable public asset. We don't need to sell it off. We can keep it in trust and we can lease it for essential housing," he said.

"So the first-time buyer pays the cost of building a home but not the full market cost of the land, which is helping to make it impossible for our people to buy those houses."

Nearly seven years on from the announcement, what has happened to his plans?

Ten developments got the go-ahead under the Design for Manufacture scheme, as it became known - but two of them have failed to materialise at all.

One development that did is Oxley Woods, in Milton Keynes - an estate of 115 modern, eco-friendly homes which stand out strikingly from the town's other, more traditional, brick-built developments.

But first-time buyer Gillian Parker says she has not heard of anyone buying a house there for £60,000.

Her own three-bedroom house was originally advertised for sale at £225,000 when it was put on the market in 2008.

"When the valuer came round, he said it wasn't worth that. It was worth £210,000," she says. "Within 24 hours, the builders had dropped their asking price to match the lower valuation.

"Not having any experience in this, I didn't have any expectations, but I was told by people that were helping that that was rather quick of them to lower so swiftly."

Gillian's is one of 56 homes at Oxley Woods that were projected to cost £60,000 to build.

But the final construction cost was actually around £85,000, according to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), the national housing and regeneration agency for England.

Despite overshooting the budget, Campbell Robb, chief executive of the housing and homelessness charity Shelter says the scheme has its good points.

"On one level it did work because some of the manufacturers did come up with some good ideas about construction methods.

"This meant they could drive down some of the costs around building the homes and improve the environmental performance of them."

But did this lead to cheaper homes for first-time buyers?

"Fundamentally these did not have an impact on prices. If the cost of the house is £60,000 but the market sells it at £175,000 it just doesn't help," says Mr Robb.

And the average selling price for a property at Oxley Woods was even higher - £231,000 - with the most expensive home offered for £375,000.

One reason for the higher-than-expected prices is that the cost of the land was never separated from the selling price of those homes which were completed, as Mr Prescott had proposed.

However, the HCA told the BBC: "From the outset, all competition material [for organisations bidding for the construction project] made it clear that £60,000 was not a sale price, but rather a target construction cost.

The HCA says the Design for Manufacture Competition has been successful in giving the house-building industry a much clearer idea of construction best practice, but "in any project testing new methods and approaches, there will always be some things that work and some that don't".

So, with these plans for cheaper homes failing to get off the ground, Gillian turned to an increasingly common source of lending for first-time buyers - parents.

The coalition government plans to build 170,000 affordable new homes by 2015 They helped fund her deposit but after after securing a mortgage, she was still short of what she needed to buy the house she wanted, so she turned to another government scheme for help.

The Homebuy scheme is the umbrella for all government-funded affordable home-ownership schemes. It is through one of these that Gillian took out a loan to cover the shortfall.

She will pay off the loan alongside her mortgage.

The Homebuy initiative also offers shared ownership through different housing associations, meaning buyers purchase a percentage of the property's market value, while paying subsidised rent on the remaining share.

The coalition government expects to provide 170,000 affordable new homes by 2015.

Chancellor George Osborne also announced a new loan scheme, FirstBuy, in which the government will work with housebuilders to provide £250m to help 10,000 first-time buyers raise deposits to buy homes.

"Homebuy can be a very positive experience," says Shelter's Mr Robb. "But it helps less than 1% of all households in this country.

"Unless we release more land and are careful about how house prices rise, and then we start to build enough homes in the right places and the right kind of homes, none of these schemes will make up for that fundamental lack in government policy," he says.

Back in Milton Keynes, Gillian ponders the fact that she had to pay substantially more than the £60,000 she and many other buyers might have hoped to pay, but she is still very pleased with her home and the Oxley Woods community.

"I'm very glad that we were lucky to find somewhere when we did," she says. "But I feel sympathy for everyone that's struggling like we were at one point."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure a lot of people knew! :huh:

Wasn't gonna work! Was it ? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least next time you hear a builder bleating about the rising cost of building when trying to sell a slavebox for £250k you'll feel even less sorry than you did before.

I've always maintained houses cost sub £70k to build, they were selling MK houses for £50k 10 years ago just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least next time you hear a builder bleating about the rising cost of building when trying to sell a slavebox for £250k you'll feel even less sorry than you did before.

I've always maintained houses cost sub £70k to build, they were selling MK houses for £50k 10 years ago just fine.

It's the land innit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One development that did is Oxley Woods, in Milton Keynes - an estate of 115 modern, eco-friendly homes which stand out strikingly from the town's other, more traditional, brick-built developments.

:D Milton Keynes - "Traditional"!!!!

It's the land innit!

The land is excluded - the Government owns the land in this case.

Had the government wanted, they could just "sell" the property to "owners" on the premise that they have to sell it at the same price when they leave - either to someone else, or back to the government.

Likewise, I don't see why the places that MP's bought on expenses, and got the capital gains for, should be allowed to profit from what is essentially the government pot.

Ih, wait - the MP's proffited massively from the policy - I see why now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The land is excluded - the Government owns the land in this case.

No, that's just it, they didn't, go and re-read the article:The

"And the average selling price for a property at Oxley Woods was even higher - £231,000 - with the most expensive home offered for £375,000.

One reason for the higher-than-expected prices is that the cost of the land was never separated from the selling price of those homes which were completed, as Mr Prescott had proposed. "

The building costs will surely have increased in the last decade or two, but the cost of the land with PP has rocketed.

This whole idea just helps to keep the plates spinning a little longer, by creating a new class of tenant who owns their own bricks, but not the land (a 21st century council house?) Indicative of how deeply rooted the resistance to a fall in (or tax on) land values is in government. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or the govt. could borrow as much as it likes at negative real rates for 30 years and build as much social housing as is required, giving everyone the opportunity to have a warm, insulated, cheap to run home near their place of work, driving down the price of housing generally and providing real jobs creating infrastructure for the future.

Except the Bullingon Boys would rather you paid £300k for a 2 bed flat in a riot zone to line their chums pockets and keep their bankster handlers in clover in anticipation of their forthcoming board appointments to JP Morgan and Rothschilds, same as the last lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least next time you hear a builder bleating about the rising cost of building when trying to sell a slavebox for £250k you'll feel even less sorry than you did before.

I've always maintained houses cost sub £70k to build, they were selling MK houses for £50k 10 years ago just fine.

In fairness, the cost of materials has skyrocketed (cement, steel, roof tiles, aggregate, etc. have gone by factors of 2 to 4 times) in the last few years. Unless those prices go down, we're not going to realistically see properties in areas with even small demand selling for £60k.

If the land was free, you didn't pay any council/solicitor fees, the builder/tradespeople did the work for free, then you might be able to build a no-frills, 1,000sq/ft house for £60,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness, the cost of materials has skyrocketed (cement, steel, roof tiles, aggregate, etc. have gone by factors of 2 to 4 times) in the last few years. Unless those prices go down, we're not going to realistically see properties in areas with even small demand selling for £60k.

If the land was free, you didn't pay any council/solicitor fees, the builder/tradespeople did the work for free, then you might be able to build a no-frills, 1,000sq/ft house for £60,000.

...unles the cost of materials and labour drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip> In fairness, the cost of materials has skyrocketed (cement, steel, roof tiles, aggregate, etc. have gone by factors of 2 to 4 times) in the last few years. Unless those prices go down, we're not going to realistically see properties in areas with even small demand selling for £60k.

The whole idea was to use different building methods, thus avoiding some of the cost of the materials used in traditional construction.

"The former Labour minister's solution was to challenge the construction industry to build homes for just £60,000 ($97,000).

They could do this, he argued, by embracing more modern methods of construction, like building homes off-site and using materials more effectively."

As Campbell Robb says "On one level it did work because some of the manufacturers did come up with some good ideas about construction methods.

"This meant they could drive down some of the costs around building the homes and improve the environmental performance of them."

Anyone who's interested in this kind of thing could check out http://www.elements-europe.com/tyunnos-overview.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least next time you hear a builder bleating about the rising cost of building when trying to sell a slavebox for £250k you'll feel even less sorry than you did before.

I've always maintained houses cost sub £70k to build, they were selling MK houses for £50k 10 years ago just fine.

What has changed since is firstly the increase in building control standards. However few complain about paying a bit more for a house that will cost less to heat etc.

The second big thing is the introduction of Section 106 agreements where the developer has to upgrade the sewerage treatment, the roads and contribute to local health centres/schools and offer land free for affordable housing. All good stuff but the cost of this has to both come off the land and onto the cost price to build the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness, the cost of materials has skyrocketed (cement, steel, roof tiles, aggregate, etc. have gone by factors of 2 to 4 times) in the last few years. Unless those prices go down, we're not going to realistically see properties in areas with even small demand selling for £60k.

If the land was free, you didn't pay any council/solicitor fees, the builder/tradespeople did the work for free, then you might be able to build a no-frills, 1,000sq/ft house for £60,000.

I don't think it is possible to build a 1000sqft house for 60K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least next time you hear a builder bleating about the rising cost of building when trying to sell a slavebox for £250k you'll feel even less sorry than you did before.

I've always maintained houses cost sub £70k to build, they were selling MK houses for £50k 10 years ago just fine.

+1

Although material prices have gone up hourly construction labour costs didn't partly due to thousands and thousands of cheap incomers from overseas. Also the cost of materials is a small fraction of the cost of building a house. If house prices were to come down so would land prices.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 335 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.